By: northfield123 on 11/3/09
Suburbia, here we come. As a Northfield resident for decades, I've seen the progression Northfield has made towards resembling suburb communities more and more. Maybe this is the natural evolution of things, but maybe it is because of decisions such as these that forever change the town's personality.

The most concerning thing here is that it comes from a Mayor that spews hippocracy in the rally for support of local stores such as her very own. Citing "lower costs" and "larger number of attorneys" as reasons for this decision, its a wonder why anybody would shop locally when Eagan and St. Paul stores offer a wider variety of products at lower prices.

That being said, these decision factors are weak arguments to begin with. The cost difference after traveling rates from Eagan and St. Paul are going to be minimal, don't forget that the court office is in Fairbault. Service can't be matched. No longer will Northfield residents be able to go in and talk to the attorneys about city legal disputes. And experience-wise, Maren and Tim have been doing this for over 20 years, who would be more experienced in the town's legal work?

It's these sorts of examples that make me lose all faith in the abilities of our community leaders.

By: fairandbalanced on 11/3/09
The fact that this decision is based on marginal financial savings makes me think that there's something else driving the decision, but it's not being shared. I assume the city gets billed while these attorneys are driving to Faribault and back?

If I'm wrong, I apologize, but is it not true that Maren Swanson's husband's law firm was representing Lee Lansing at one point? I seem to remember that being true, and also that it was strange that the city attorney and her husband were representing parties who were in litigation with each other? Was that unethical in some way, or unethical that it wasn't disclosed right away? Or did it strike anyone else as odd? My guess is it's something like this that is the real basis for this decision.

By: OnlytheFacts on 11/3/09
Mayor Rossing started on the right path, but now she is headed down the road of compromise like Lee did. I wonder what she'll get arrested for in the future?

By: northfield123 on 11/3/09
fairandbalanced,

I agree. This has the stench of personal vendetta.

By: NNSuzy on 11/3/09
Fair and balanced:

You may be thinking of Lance Heisler, who at the time represented former Mayor
Lee Lansing. Heisler is not married to Maren Swanson, he is a partner in her
firm, Lampe Law Group.

Suzy

By: cupersd on 11/3/09
So much much for support the local businesses. I think we should start a boycott of the mayor's store.

By: Bill on 11/3/09
I know I'll be personally boycotting it (Present Perfect). This decision is very upsetting.

By: EditorJaci on 11/3/09
I'm just going to throw out what I'm sure will be a controversial observation ... I find it interesting that while Mayor Lansing was under investigation and facing allegations of misusing his public office, the call was to continue to support him as a businessman. It seemed as though we needed to keep the politician separate from the business owner. Now, however, because Mayor Rossing made a controversial decision in her role as mayor, the call now is to make her pay as a businessperson.
What does the fact that she's a local business owner have to do with her decision as mayor to vote to award a contract to a metro law firm? It seems as though we're suggesting her primary role as mayor is to promote "local" above all else. Is it?

By: Bill on 11/3/09
MEJaci,

That's a very good point.

Her role as mayor isn't to promote "local" above all else. It is to make decisions that benefit the town. It just so happens that promoting local is a great fundamental way to do this. So when it comes down to a close decision between who can provide the best services, local should win, hands down.

As for boycotting her store, why would I shop at a store owned by someone who can't apply their own guiding principles to decisions made at a level that affect the community?!

By: fairandbalanced on 11/3/09
My apologies to Maren Swanson, but it was a member of her law firm. Is it strange for 2 lawyers in the same firm to represent opposing parties? It's strange to me.

As for Mary Rossing and her store.. I wouldn't change my shopping habits because I disagreed with a decision that a politician made. I'd call her up and tell her I disagreed, and if I needed something at her store, I'd go buy it.

My current issue with Mary is that I'm not 100% convinced that she's been forthcoming with the truth about this attorney decision.

I also believe that when it comes to our tax dollars, we shouldn't necessarily buy local just to buy local.

The whole deal with Lee Lansing was totally different. He was accused of breaking the law, (pretty obvious) and I felt as though he betrayed my trust of the power I gave him when I helped elect him. I think he has proven himself to be unscrupulous, without a moral or ethical conscience, and shows blatant disregard for the law. I would never, ever, buy anything from him again, and I do my best to make sure others don't.

By: Bill on 11/3/09
fairandbalanced: "I'm not 100% convinced that she's been forthcoming with the truth about this attorney decision"

I couldn't agree with you more. It was almost like Rossing made up her mind long before the council even began discussing this. Her response to Maren's letter to the city was: "The letter doesn’t change anything." I think I read somewhere too that they were even offering to negotiate on the rates.

It all just seems very odd.

By: EditorJaci on 11/3/09
OK, I'll bite. What is the personal vendetta? Where have Swanson/Morissette and Rossing locked horns before? And a question to the general population: what is it that you want Rossing and the selection committee to be more forthcoming about? Do you think they aren't being upfront when they say it isn't about performance?

By: northfield123 on 11/3/09
Of course this is pure speculation...

"Swanson said she also wanted her letter to address what she assumes are issues the city may have with her: the Target annexation of 1998 and the rental ordinance of 2007. Both were contentious issues that caused friction between opposing sides and the council."

Excerpt from:
http://www.northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=50317

By: Uberstadt on 11/3/09
I am glad that at least someone is fair minded enough to acknoledge that they would still be able to shop in the mayor's store if they disagree with her. For all you other boycotters, do you really want Northfield to be portaying the image that if you are a business owner and you make a decision that is controversial that you will will be run out of business? Maybe the mayr and the selection committee made a decision that they feel was best for the city. Get on with your lives and stop. Why continue to reduce the pool of good people that are willing to run for office?

By: Bill on 11/3/09
Uberstadt: "Maybe the mayor and the selection committee made a decision that they feel was best for the city."

Maybe? Boy, I sure hope that's why they made the decision.

By: Uberstadt on 11/3/09
Bill, then come out with the reason instead of steaming under the collar. Not every decision is the result of a hidden agenda. Sometimes good comes from change. A service providor to the city can now know that there are no guarantees and there is an open market for competition of services.

By: Bill on 11/3/09
Let's not justify this because "sometimes good comes from change". And yes, there should be an open market for competition of services, but I just don't believe that the best selection was made and I was trying to understand why.

By: dapa2 on 11/3/09
I hope the Northfield News (Suzy or Jaci) will do a Government Data Practices request and analyze the difference between the old contract and the new and see just what big advantage Northfield is supposed to get!

Flaherty & Hood represented the City of Pine River in its attempt to annex developed business property in neighbor Wilson Township in North Central Minnesota in which Wilson and residents overwhelmingly objected to. The City was all about greedily growing its tax base at the expense and objections of everybody and lost big time because the law was not on their side. They were pushed to persue and voila over $440,000 in legal fees later the city lost.

Certainly worked out for taxpayers in Pine River and Wilson Township.

I guess if Northfield just wants to be part of the big city network that utilizes the other firm such as City of Plymouth, St. Louis Park, etc.

By: NotYou on 11/3/09
Jaci,

Many people did boycott or greatly reduce their shopping at Lansing's store when all his misbehavior came to light.

Mayor Rossing has been very outspoken about shopping locally. This decision seems to run counter to her own sermons on the issue. It's more relevant, directly, to her stated positions than Lansing's shenanigans were to the issue of shopping locally.

It's not out of line to see the irony in her support of the decision to go for lawyers that cost less and come from firms with a larger selection of attorneys. There's certainly hypocrisy there, though I wouldn't call the Mayor a hypocrite. We all embrace certain hypocrisies in our lives, whether we admit it or not.

I don't think there's anything sinister going on. Relevant experience and cost were listed as factors in the decision. A perfectly legitimate decision alone can motivate people to action, however. If Lansing had made the same decision, absent all the other issues which he brought on himself, he probably would have been called out on the hypocrisy of it too.

Out of respect to the Mayor, it was a tough call, and I'm sure she probably understood the irony inherent in her support for the metro attorneys. I only hope it doesn't backfire.

By: Uberstadt on 11/3/09
And Northfield spent about $400,000 on the old mayor, city council and administrator fiasco. All guided by the mayor that said he would cut city spending. I guess all cities have their problems with money.

By: fairandbalanced on 11/3/09
My guess on the why Maren Swanson mentioned the rental code issue is that she may have advised the city that it was "ok", but there has been much discussion and contention that it is not in fact legal, and might be overturned if there was a court case? Maybe she thinks this hurt their chances?

Nobody else has mentioned the relationship between Swanson and Heisler. Does nobody else think it was strange that the attorney representing the ciy and the attorney representing Lee Lansing worked at the same firm? In fact, wasn't there something(I couldn't find it in the archives) about Lee Lansing essentially running money through the law firms bank account or something like that?

If I had a lawyer representing me, and I found out later that an attorney in the same firm was representing and helping my chief antagonist and didn't tell me about it, I'd drop that firm so fast....and I'd never hire them again.

Let's assume for a moment that the mayor is telling us the truth about this decision. Maybe she and Mr Walinski could help us feel better by at least coming out and a) detailing the exact financial differences between the two firms b)stating for the record somewhere that this really is the reason and that there is no backroom discussion going on behind closed doors regarding other reasons for not hiring the firm back.

Regarding the firms offer to negotiate their rates..I can see that there's a point where you ask "what's your rate"? You get an answer and you make a decision. The firm probably hadn't dreamed that their contract was in jeopardy, so it had never occurred to them to adjust their rate. Then they find out their losing their business, and suddenly they're willing to negotiate their rate. From the city's perspective, you can't play bidding games like this forever. You told us what your rate was, now live with it, we had to make a decision. Does that make any sense?

By: hidden on 11/3/09
Councilman Pokorney - I'd like to see you clarify your quote. How are we "into the fire"?

By: fairandbalanced on 11/3/09
Jaci:

As I re-read the letter from Swanson to the city, I wondered if this letter was assuming that Lampe had lost the contract and was intended to provide us with clues about why Lampe feels they were dropped?

Swanson mentions the Target issue specifically. As city attorney at the time of that whole fiasco, did she give the council legal advice that was sort of in favor of target or sort of against it?

I remember that there was some group of citizens that brought some lawsuit, which I think failed, trying to overturn something. Maybe the council's decision on Target?
Were any of the current city council members part of the group that filed that lawsuit?

I assume that people who opposed the target might have been sort of bitter about the fact that the store was allowed to go in?

Is Swanson suggesting that she suspects that this could be some kind of revenge for her role in that process?

Maybe somebody with a better memory than me could have a better idea of what the target issue might have to do with Lampe not getting chosen?

By: Townie on 11/4/09
I am with northfield123, fairandbalanced, and onlythefacts and would sum up my thoughts and feelings in four words.... "I smell a rat." There are so many holes in this entire situation; i.e. our mayor, and (former) strong supporter of downtown now seeking out-of-towners for attorneys - her promises seem to have taken a different path since last falls' election. I thought our city officials had learned *some* sort of lesson after Lansing's fiasco, but I'm beginning to doubt that, as well. And who is going to pay the price for these ill decisions? You got it... us, the taxpayers, either financially or once again, by further public embarrassment - or both. I still think Paul Hager, a non-business owner, would have been a better choice as our mayor; but because he is not a business owner he was not such a public figure (not all bad in some cases!). All we can do now is sit back and let the another city saga unfold...........

By: Uberstadt on 11/4/09
fairandbalanced, your post starting with "My guess..." was well written. My thoughts exactly.

I thin the City Council could have been forthright by saying that the other firms are able to provide significantly more experience in providing important services in our growing city. Sometimes businesses (and the city) needs to raise the bar and expand their horizons.

It was kind of sad to see the Lampe firm begging for their jobs at that city council meeting. I think the Lampe firm was too cozy and it was time for a shake-up. They can try again in a few years and best of luck to them.

By: northfield123 on 11/4/09
With all due respect to Maren and Tim, they clearly have enjoyed serving the community and the community has appreciated their service. When such strong relationships have been built between community and service provider over decades of interaction, emotions are going to run high. I think your choice of words could have been a little less demeaning as to call them out as beggars.

In Tim's own words: "I’m disappointed with the City Council’s decision. I think it’s a mistake, but we all have to move on."

Quote taken from:
http://www.northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=50366

By: Uberstadt on 11/4/09
Northfield123, if your employer laid you off because they thought you were no longer up to the task or if they wanted to use someone else's skills and you went to the board of directors and made that same presentation and testimony as we saw from the Lampe firm at the city council meeting, how do you think that would look? It would look just like it did before the city council. It was just unseemly, that's all.

By: Townie on 11/4/09
I commend Tim Morissette for saying, without begging, "I’m disappointed with the City Council’s decision. I think it’s a mistake, but we all have to move on." I, too, think it is a mistake; we are loosing more than a local law firm when we loose Tim and Maren, and they have been anything but "too comfy." This life-long resident is loosing faith in the Council's ability to make decisions.

By: EditorJaci on 11/4/09
fairandbalanced, the Target issue was way before my time, but I'm getting a little research done and will get back to you on your questions. They're intriguing. But I would continue to submit there is no "personal" vendetta going on here, unless Rossing somehow were personally affected by either the Lansing issue, the rental ordinance or Target. I don't see the connection.
I also wonder about the "community uproar." It's hard to gauge how upset the public in general is about this issue by looking at online comments — no matter the site. That's a pretty small crowd.

By: Uberstadt on 11/4/09
On the contrary Townie, I find comfort in seeing that the city council is beginning to think outside the box and take control over the direction they want to go.